SRI. BHARAT JAIN @ BHARATH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA

MFA/4828/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Bharat Jain, who sustained grievous injuries in a vehicular accident caused by a lorry belonging to the Union of India. The accident resulted in permanent disabilities affecting his mobility, speech, and overall quality of life. Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which the appellant found inadequate, leading to this appeal. The High Court, after considering the appellant's medical condition, loss of income, and other factors, decided to enhance the compensation under various heads, acknowledging the severe impact of the injuries on the appellant's life.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722331 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: MV Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B P PUTTASIDDIAH
• Assessee Lawyers: D L SURESH
• Keywords: Compensation Enhancement; Medical expenses; Permanent disability; Vehicular accident; Loss of future earning capacity; Pain and suffering
• Section: 173(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL M.F.A. NO. 4828/2013 (MVC) BETWEEN: SRI BHARAT JAIN @ BHARATH KUMAR MACT, HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUBARPET HOSAKOTE BANGALORE RURAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI D.L.SURESH, ADV.,) AND: UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL ASC CENTRE AND COLLEGE BANGALORE – 900 493 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.P.PUTTASIDDAIAH, CGSC,) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE 2 JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2903/2009 ON THE IFLE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ANAND BYRAREDDY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT The respondent’s counsel is absent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is before this Court for the second time. Earlier the appeal was filed and remanded at the instance of the appellant who had sought for permission to lead additional evidence with regard to his treatment and for enhancement of compensation on that ground. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 17.5.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant along with others, were said to be travelling in an Alto Car from Hoskote to Bangalore and at that time, a lorry belonging to AC Centre, South which was said to have 3 been driven at a high speed, is said to have dashed into the car in which the appellant was travelling, as a result of which he had sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Koshy’s Hospital and thereafter was treated at Hosmat Hospital and subsequently at Mallya Hospital, Bangalore. In spite of such treatment, the appellant was left with a permanent disability. He had suffered severe head injuries. There was a restriction in his movement, he was not able to walk, his mobility was severely affected, he was unable to speak. As per tests conducted by the experts the appellant continued to have difficulty in speech, he has tremors and unsteadiness and his memory was found impaired. It is in this background that the appellant had sought for compensation which was contested by the respondent. 3. The Tribunal after having addressed the material evidence produced before it, has awarded compensation under several heads which, it is 4 contended, is on the lower side and that the Tribunal has failed to consider certain heads and therefore the appellant is before this Court. 4. It is pointed out that the appellant was on inpatient for over 2½ months and thereafter he is said to have undertaken follow-up treatment for several months and continues under medication even today. It further transpires that the appellant had married about 8 months prior to the accident. He was 24 years at the time of the accident and due to the injuries suffered and the disability he was left with, he was unable to perform his marital duties, as a result of which his wife is said to have deserted him and had returned to her parent’s house. Thereafter she is said to have filed a petition for divorce which was referred to mediation and subsequently the marriage stood dissolved, by agreement. The appellant is not physically fit for remarriage. Therefore, the pain and suffering was not only physical, but emotional as well. The Tribunal has 5 awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards such pain and suffering, which as pointed out is unfair and would not be adequately compensated for the physical pain that he suffered during the treatment and seeks enhancement on that ground. 5. In so far as the loss of future earning is concerned, the Tribunal has chosen to attribute the income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month and has applied a multiplier of ‘18’, taking the percentage of disability at 20%, whereas the medical practitioner had assessed the disability at 25% to the whole body. In so far as the income of the appellant is concerned, it is contended that the appellant was doing business and earning Rs.11,200/- per month. He was an income tax assessee. The Tribunal has negatived the said contention and having opined that the appellant was working along with his father and that the business belonged to the father, has attributed Rs.5,000/- as his income. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the 6 appellant, it is unfair as the income tax returns produced were not in respect of the business which was being run by his father, but were in the name of the appellant and therefore the income of at least Rs.11,200/- per month ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal and the percentage of disability appears to be on the lower side as even assessed by the medical practitioner. 6. In so far as food, conveyance and other expenses during treatment are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, which is unreasonable. As it is on record that the appellant was an inpatient for over 2½ months the travel and other expenses could not be assessed only at Rs.15,000/-. The appellant had spent much more and accordingly seeks a reasonable amount of enhancement under such head. 7. The loss of income during treatment is assessed at Rs.30,000/- which is also not proper on the ground 7 of monthly income of only Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.11,200/-. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of future happiness, which is also unfair. The appellant is now completely handicapped and has lost many amenities in life, he is unable to walk, speak and has no strength in his body, not able to interact with others and he is totally deprived of enjoyment of future life. As such, it could not be at Rs.30,000/- and seeks enhancement on that ground. 8. In so far as loss of happiness is concerned, it is pointed out that the appellant was only 24 years at the time of accident and his wife having deserted him and his prospects of re-marriage being totally lost, he has to suffer both mentally and physically through out his life. Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is wholly unreasonable and seeks that it should be adequately compensated. While also pointing out that there can be 8 no measure of compensation to be attributed to such mental pain, seeks a reasonable amount towards loss of happiness. It is further pointed out that as per P13, the appellant has suffered injuries to his head, face and upper portion of his body and as a result of head injuries there is serious physical impairment in his mobility and control. Though the injuries have healed, the aftereffects continue and he is required to be under medication through out. It is pointed out that there is no scope for him to seek additional compensation when once the award is passed and therefore seeks compensation towards future medical expenses. 9. It is to be accepted that the grounds raised in this appeal and the reasons assigned for seeking enhancement of compensation under several heads is well justified. In that background, the award towards pain and suffering only in a sum of Rs.60,000/- is certainly on the lower side. As it is observed that in the normal case of injuries where fractures heal depending 9 on the number of injuries and the period of treatment, it is certainly much more than what is awarded to the appellant. Hence, in our opinion, the pain and suffering which will continue through out his life would require to be adequately compensated. Therefore, in our opinion, additional amount of Rs.60,000/- would be just under this head. 10. The Tribunal was not justified in adopting the income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/- per month when there was material evidence to demonstrate his income as Rs.11,200/- per month. Therefore, at least the said amount of Rs.11,200/- ought to have been adopted for the purpose of calculating loss of future earning capacity. Percentage of disability adopted is again contrary to the percentage that was expressed by the medical practitioner. The Tribunal could not have substituted the percentage of disability on its own. If it had any doubt with regard to the assessment of disability, the only alternative left with it was to seek a 10 further medical opinion in that regard and the Tribunal could not have proceeded as if it could substitute its opinion over the medical opinion. Accordingly, the percentage of disability shall be taken at 25%, in which event, the additional compensation would be Rs.6,04,800/- (11200x12x18x25/100). 11. The amount awarded for food, conveyance during treatment is on the lower side and it should at least be tripled. The appellant is entitled to further amount of Rs.30,000/- towards such expenses. In so far as the loss of income during treatment period is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/- which shall be Rs.70,000/- on the same basis, but however, the income being taken at Rs.11,200/- per month. 12. The loss of amenities awarded at Rs.30,000/- is again improper since the loss of amenities cannot be quantified by money. The appellant is entitled to 11 additional amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. 13. In so far as the loss of future happiness is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- which is on the lower side. The fact that he was aged 24 years, and 8 months prior to the accident he had entered his marital life and as a result of the injuries and the disability, his wife having deserted him and having filed a divorce petition, which ultimately ended in dissolution of his marriage, and there being is no scope of his re-marriage, he is left troubled both mentally and physically. He is required to be adequately compensated. Therefore, in our opinion, the appellant is held entitled to a further additional amount of Rs.2,80,000/- under this head. As regards future medical expenses, as the appellant would require medication and follow up treatment through out his life which is again speculative, we feel it proper to award a 12 reasonable sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards such future medical expenses. Accordingly, the appellant shall be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.9,18,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. The appeal is partly allowed. The office is directed to draw up the decree accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *ck/- "